My roomie is a vegan and recently read The China Study book. I just read the appendices because that seems to be where lots of figures and tables are. Just from reading the appendices I knew I didn't want to read the book because of its blatant biases and repetitive nature. I agree with everything in moderation. Also, books aren't peer-reviewed which in this case makes me think I should take it with a grain of salt. Although I think a lot of whats written is a good guideline for food intake.

Just on a personal note, when I exercise a lot I feel like I need to eat protein. I don't know if there is any science to back that up though.

I do agree that lots of vegans are healthy--like my roomie. It just isn't for me at this moment--maybe later on? who knows. I'm in an environmental major so there are lots of vegans surrounding me

I agree with the 3 posts above me, everything in moderation and listen to your own voice. Eating high protein doesn't necessarily mean you have to eat a ton of meat either, there's plenty of plant proteins out there. Veganism is a bit tricky because you have to be aware of your amino acids, not just your protein intake. The fittest person I know has been religiously on Atkins for 8 years at least, but it's too extreme for me. Veganism is also too extreme for my tastes, but there's plenty of fit and healthy vegans in the world. Both diets require more thought and effort to follow than I want to put in to the process. The long and short is, there's no one "right" diet. Know what you're putting in your mouth and get your butt off the couch are concepts we can all get behind though.

__________________
If I keep starting over, eventually it will stick, right?

Just on a personal note, when I exercise a lot I feel like I need to eat protein. I don't know if there is any science to back that up though.

There is some good science out there to back that up. When you exercise you "use up" a lot of bodily protein - breaking down of muscle in response to stress, upregulation of enzymes to clear waste buildup out of your body, upregulation of certain hormones to help response to stress and recovery, etc... so your body tells you to find more to replenish the stores. I'll append some abstracts when I can find them, but for now just rest assured that it's a normal, evolutionary adaptation to stress.

I really do think cotton balls have to be the most ridiculous "diet" on that list.

Disclaimer: I'm not professionally qualified to make any formal recommendations. I've just done my homework and I'm my own guinea pig. All of my data, unless otherwise cited, comes from a sample size of n=1 (me).

This is an interesting thread. Protein versus carbs is a big debate. But here is what I have discovered. The high protein low carb people say carbs are bad. But if you really drill them, you will discover that they promote lots of fruits and vegetables with a lot of carbs. So, what they are really saying is processed carbs are bad. The high carb people say the exact same thing. So lets emphasize that point:

Processed carbs are bad, and they are bad because they have a lot of calories and very little nutrition. Does anyone disagree with this?

Now, the high protein crowd will run studies with people on high carb diets versus high protein diets. But if you read the studies and not just the abstracts, they use things like potato chips, white bread, pasta, and other processed carbs to skew the studies to show the benefits of high protein. Anyone trying to sell you a fad diet is going to show you studies that are skewed to their way of thinking. Loren Cordain is trying to sell everyone a diet and his studies and references are sponsored by industries that are favored by his diet. He developed the diet, then developed data to support his theory.

Fad diets show studies that support their theory. Does anyone disagree with this?

Dr. Colin Campbell is a scientist in the strictest sense. He was actually hired to prove that protein deficiency was causing cancer in children. He performed a very scientific study with no pre-conceived bias and eventually his study became the most thorough study in nutrition ever conducted. His data taking has been peer reviewed and found to have exceptional accuracy. He has around 750 references in his study. He promotes a lifestyle based on health and performance and not one that focuses entirely on looks. How many athletes do you know who eat a high protein diet? The best endurance athletes in the world eat 75%+ carbs in their diets.

The higher the whole food carbs, the better the physical performance. Does anyone disagree with this?

Any diet can make you look good if you stick to it long enough. But the lifestyle that makes you feel good, promotes health, and is easily adopted for the rest of your life if the only one you should consider. The rest are all fads. Dr. Campbell doesn't promote any fads.

If you want to look good, then get liposuction and eat what you want. If you want to look good, feel good, and be healthy, adopt a healthy lifestyle.

This is an interesting thread. Protein versus carbs is a big debate. But here is what I have discovered. The high protein low carb people say carbs are bad. But if you really drill them, you will discover that they promote lots of fruits and vegetables with a lot of carbs. So, what they are really saying is processed carbs are bad. The high carb people say the exact same thing. So lets emphasize that point:

Processed carbs are bad, and they are bad because they have a lot of calories and very little nutrition. Does anyone disagree with this? .

Most low-carb advocates eat very little fruit. They advocate non-starchy vegetables which are high in fiber, and while they are proportionately high in carbs their total nutritional content calorie-wise is quite low. In the end, the LOW-carb requirement is satisfied. No one here is promoting a NO-carb diet.

Now, the high protein crowd will run studies with people on high carb diets versus high protein diets. But if you read the studies and not just the abstracts, they use things like potato chips, white bread, pasta, and other processed carbs to skew the studies to show the benefits of high protein. Anyone trying to sell you a fad diet is going to show you studies that are skewed to their way of thinking. Loren Cordain is trying to sell everyone a diet and his studies and references are sponsored by industries that are favored by his diet. He developed the diet, then developed data to support his theory.

Fad diets show studies that support their theory. Does anyone disagree with this?

Loren Cordain's research mostly has to do with hunter-gatherer and paleolithic man populations. The research shows how human development centered around a low-carb, high-fat, moderate-protein diet. The only thing Cordain sells is his book outlining the tenets of the paleo diet. He doesn't sell any supplements or diet products like the Atkins people do. He doesn't stand to gain anything from the dietary choices of the people who read his book, other than some kind of vindication.

Cordain is a professor at Colorado State University. Most of his research is funded by university research grants and NSF grants. His work is based on sound analyses of anthropological and prehistorical data, empirical studies of nutritional sources, and careful reading of literature. His papers are published in numerous peer-reviewed journals and are respected for their scientific integrity as well as their insight. His dietary advice derives from what he has found in his studies, not the other way around.

I took a look through the published articles on Cordain's website just to see what industries were supporting his research. Out of 42 listed studies, just one was supported by a grant from the Gatorade Sports Science Institute. One was supported by the Purdue University Agricultural Center and the Pope and Young Conservation Club, a bow-hunting organization. One more was funded in part by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. The rest of them came directly out of his university lab. There were three book chapters that might generate some meager royalties, but nothing even close to paint him as the corporation-supported quack you make him out to be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoeyCoey

How many athletes do you know who eat a high protein diet? The best endurance athletes in the world eat 75&#37;+ carbs in their diets.

The higher the whole food carbs, the better the physical performance. Does anyone disagree with this?

Power-lifters, strongmen, sprinters, swimmers, track athletes, field athletes, football players, and gymnasts all eat high amounts of protein. Carbs are essential post-training to replenish glycogen (intramuscular fuel), but beyond that have no biological requirement. In excess they also cause bloat and lethargy, something that no athlete wants to deal with since it damages performance. As such, carb is limited to post-practice and simple carbs are emphasized over complex to speed recovery.

As a side note, have you ever seen how much muscle a marathon runner carries? Next to none. Marathoners have a lanky, metabolically efficient frame that burns next to no calories on its own so that energy can be preserved for long-distance running. I don't want to look like that. IMO it appears quite unhealthy.

Disclaimer: I'm not professionally qualified to make any formal recommendations. I've just done my homework and I'm my own guinea pig. All of my data, unless otherwise cited, comes from a sample size of n=1 (me).

First off, please don't put words in my mouth. I never called anyone a quack. I pointed out a truth of which you are well aware. Please don't diminish the value of this discussion with accusing me of something in an attempt to discredit me. That is ad hominem and doesn't lend any credit to your argument.

People ate a high protein diet out of the need to survive periods of famine. The paleo diet is for gaining weight, not losing weight. People were not concerned with how they looked or their bellies. They were concerned about survival.

The whole premise or theory that the hunter-gatherer societies are the way we "should" eat is based on a desire to continue to eat high protein diets. If we wanted to look at what we should eat, we should examine our anatomy and taxonomy. If we base our future on the theory that whatever we did in the past is "correct", then some of us would still own slaves, or others might be stealing their spouses from neighboring cities and forcing marriage upon them, etc.

If we look at cultures with high protein diets in today's society, we see evidence of poor health and poor longevity.

If I wanted information on how to exercise properly, I would consult Dr. Cordain, a PhD in Physical Education. If I wanted to know something about nutrition, I would consult Doctor Campbell, a Professor of Nutritional Biochemistry.

Could you please list some accomplished athletes on a high protein diet? I have never heard of an Atkins athlete before, but possibly my research hasn't dug one up yet.

Protein is a huge myth, because you will never ever need more protein if your life then when you are an infant. In two years, you grew around 350%. The perfect food for an infant is mothers milk with is around 4.5% protein by calories. There are plenty of bodybuilders, power lifters, and world class athletes who consume well under 20% protein and none of it animal protein. Animal protein, of course, have many bad things in it compared to plant proteins. So, if you need protein, better to go with the plant protein.

Sorry if I came across as attacking or trying to discredit you. But none of what I stated is an ad hominem attack, since I didn't criticize you outside of what you had stated before. Your assertion that "Loren Cordain is trying to sell everyone a diet and his studies and references are sponsored by industries that are favored by his diet. He developed the diet, then developed data to support his theory" implies that you don't believe the diet he promotes has any merit because the research supporting it might be sponsored by large corporations, which it isn't anyways. Please don't diminish the value of this discussion by misconstruing a point-by-point debate or disagreement for a personal attack.

In paleolithic times there were no famines as there was no agriculture. People were hunter-gatherers and thus fed off whatever the land gave them. Since tribes followed the herds, game was readily available, while fruits and vegetables were seasonal, with different things available throughout the year. Since these people were always on the move, it is highly unlikely that they were ever obese or had "bellies," despite their high fat, high protein diets. Likewise it does not appear that the "bad" animal proteins killed off our ancestors.

If we look at cultures today that eat mostly animal proteins, say for instance the Inuit, which eat mainly whale oil, deer and elk muscle and organs, seal oil and organs, and supplemented with whatever little plant material grows at such extreme climates, they are a picture of health. A number of them live to be quite old. It is only when people of that culture migrate to the city and adopt a westernized diet that the health problems begin.

I am not advocating enslaving people or oppressing women. But we can look at whether or not the low-fat, plant-based advice handed out over the last thirty years has benefited the general populace. IMO, it hasn't. And saying that it's a compliance issue, that the reason it has failed is because people don't really follow it, is just blaming the victim. We can look to the past and see what has worked in terms of diet and nutrition for specific populations, then adopt those to improve our own health. There's nothing wrong in that.

Adolescents and adults need the extra protein for muscle synthesis, as well as protein synthesis for other organ systems (hemoglobin doesn't grow on trees). Toddlers don't have that problem since they're not packing on muscle. They burn off enough calories just running around and supporting all that new gray matter. Since adults are fully developed creatures, some muscle mass is needed to bolster resting metabolism.

Olympic strength coaches get their athletes 1.5g of protein per lb of lean body mass, minimum. For a 225lb lifter that's around 11&#37; body fat that's 300g of protein per day, or about 1200 calories. At a caloric intake of 4800 calories a day, which is typical, this is around 25% protein, minimum. If they are trying to make weight at 4000 calories, this bumps it to 30%, minimum.

What exactly in animal protein is bad? Sure, I'll concede that corn-fed beef and vegetarian-fed chickens, as well as farmed fish are animals that exist only to feed American appetites and are not allowed to live in their natural states, and thus are stressed out and produce more inflammatory chemicals that end up in their flesh. But I doubt there is anything bad about grass-fed beef, free-range chicken and eggs, wild-caught fish, and hormone-free dairy. All of these protein sources are complete, meaning they provide all the necessary amino acids. Plants are naturally more specific in which amino acids they produce, so you have to eat a multitude of plants to keep from becoming deficient in any one amino acid. I'll keep the vitamins, fiber, and trace phytochemicals from my vegetables, but I'll turn to meat, dairy, or eggs for my protein.

Disclaimer: I'm not professionally qualified to make any formal recommendations. I've just done my homework and I'm my own guinea pig. All of my data, unless otherwise cited, comes from a sample size of n=1 (me).

In paleolithic times there were no famines as there was no agriculture. People were hunter-gatherers and thus fed off whatever the land gave them. Since tribes followed the herds, game was readily available, while fruits and vegetables were seasonal, with different things available throughout the year. Since these people were always on the move, it is highly unlikely that they were ever obese or had "bellies," despite their high fat, high protein diets. Likewise it does not appear that the "bad" animal proteins killed off our ancestors.

Famine is a scarcity of food. Doesn't have anything to do with agriculture.

The beauty of the theory is that it is impossible to see the health of individuals on such a diet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tandoorichicken

If we look at cultures today that eat mostly animal proteins, say for instance the Inuit, which eat mainly whale oil, deer and elk muscle and organs, seal oil and organs, and supplemented with whatever little plant material grows at such extreme climates, they are a picture of health. A number of them live to be quite old. It is only when people of that culture migrate to the city and adopt a westernized diet that the health problems begin.

Inuits live on average 10 years younger than their surrounding populations. They also tend to be quite overweight. If that is the picture of health you seek, then it would appear you are eating the correct diet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tandoorichicken

I am not advocating enslaving people or oppressing women. But we can look at whether or not the low-fat, plant-based advice handed out over the last thirty years has benefited the general populace. IMO, it hasn't. And saying that it's a compliance issue, that the reason it has failed is because people don't really follow it, is just blaming the victim. We can look to the past and see what has worked in terms of diet and nutrition for specific populations, then adopt those to improve our own health. There's nothing wrong in that.

What plant-based advice handed out over the last thirty years? I have had the standard American diet pushed in my face since I was born. Our government, medical associations, and educational institutions still promote the standard American diet. It is a very small number of individuals promoting a plant-based diet, and their health is much better than the rest of the population. Only recently has the UN started promoting a plant-based diet.

To call someone who is overweight with health problems a victim is like saying a drunk driver who causes an accident a victim. If you cause your own problems, you are not a victim.

We can't afford to look into the past simply to make excuses on what we should eat. Our planet has around 6 billion acres of arable land. Someone eating a plant based diet needs only 1/2 of an acre. A person consuming a meat based diet needs over 3.5 acres. That means that a meat based diet is unsustainable with out current population and ends up being quite selfish. In addition, animal agriculture is the largest contributor to air, soil, and water pollution, water depletion, soil erosion, etc.

Even if a meat based diet was found to be the most healthy, is it worth starving 6 other people so you can eat your meat?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tandoorichicken

Adolescents and adults need the extra protein for muscle synthesis, as well as protein synthesis for other organ systems (hemoglobin doesn't grow on trees). Toddlers don't have that problem since they're not packing on muscle. They burn off enough calories just running around and supporting all that new gray matter. Since adults are fully developed creatures, some muscle mass is needed to bolster resting metabolism.

And there is plenty of protein in plant products. There are power lifters, bodybuiders, marathon runners, iron men and women, Olympic gold metal winners, etc who all eat a plant-based diet. If you look at the number of people in the general population and relate it to the number of athletic records held by people on plant-based diets, they would show an amazing domination of the fields in which they compete.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tandoorichicken

Olympic strength coaches get their athletes 1.5g of protein per lb of lean body mass, minimum. For a 225lb lifter that's around 11% body fat that's 300g of protein per day, or about 1200 calories. At a caloric intake of 4800 calories a day, which is typical, this is around 25% protein, minimum. If they are trying to make weight at 4000 calories, this bumps it to 30%, minimum.

25% protein is quite low by American Standards. I can get 25% protein very easily on a plant based diet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tandoorichicken

What exactly in animal protein is bad? Sure, I'll concede that corn-fed beef and vegetarian-fed chickens, as well as farmed fish are animals that exist only to feed American appetites and are not allowed to live in their natural states, and thus are stressed out and produce more inflammatory chemicals that end up in their flesh. But I doubt there is anything bad about grass-fed beef, free-range chicken and eggs, wild-caught fish, and hormone-free dairy. All of these protein sources are complete, meaning they provide all the necessary amino acids. Plants are naturally more specific in which amino acids they produce, so you have to eat a multitude of plants to keep from becoming deficient in any one amino acid. I'll keep the vitamins, fiber, and trace phytochemicals from my vegetables, but I'll turn to meat, dairy, or eggs for my protein.

I recommend you read the China Study. It clearly lists all of the problems that animal protein causes.

There is no such thing as hormone or anti-biotic free dairy, eggs, or meat. They may have no hormones or anti-biotics added, but the animals still produce their own hormones and anti-biotics that end up in the meat dairy, and eggs. And I thought you were promoting the Paleo-diet which strictly forbids dairy. That didn't come about until animal husbandry.

There are several plant-based foods that are complete proteins. And if they are not complete with essential amino acids, it often takes only two different plant-based foods to get them all. Protein deficiency is extremely rare and usually only seen when people are subject to malnutrition.

And if an athlete on a plant-based diet only needs 10% protein to excel, you should be able to get by on less than half that of "complete" animal proteins.

The issue here is that there are possibly hundreds of thousands of studies which show strong statistical evidence that consuming animal products is unhealthy. There are no studies with any statistical data to support that a plant-based diet is unhealthy.

Tandoorichicken;
Thank you for your tactful and thoughtful rebuff of CoeyCoey. You took offense with the protrayal of Loren Cordain's research as coporate backed and skewed and CoeyCoey could only muster "I pointed out a truth of which you are well aware." Well I am sorry but the truth is CoeyCoey you skewed the facts to match your argument. For example: "The best endurance athletes in the world eat 75&#37;+ carbs in their diets." Why is that? It may have something to do with their training which consists of running 50 miles or more a week. The caloric burn is tremendous. They, unlike most of us "normal people" that are here on Fitday, can eat anything they want because they are burning so much. They have to eat enormous (again compared to us "normal people" ) amounts of calories to meet their energy needs. As Tandoorichicken pointed out, who wants to look like a marathon runner? What is the average weight of a male marathoner? 140 or 150 pounds? I can admire their athletic ability but their physic is not what I want to emulate.

CoeyCoey;
Please try to moderate your eat only vegetables rants. You have been on the Fitday forums for 2 days and you are already attacking members who have provided thoughtful, information and suggestions, that have helped many others reach their fitness and weight loss goals. I personnally take exception with your implication that someone on a meat based diet is destroying the earth when compared to someone on a plant based diet. Your argument assumes that your could simply remove the cattle from the land and start growing vegetables. The fact is most cattle are raised on land that is not farmable. The western half of the united states is dry. Most crops don't do well there without irrigation (and irrigation is not available or practical everywhere). However, cattle can be raised on that same land. The fact is, if the land were suitable for raising crops that is what would be there. Crops have a much higher return than cattle. While I believe the cattle industry (and especially feed lots) have their own problems I don't think they can be construed as the cause of world hunger. I understand that you are committed to your opinions and ideals but please back your statements with facts and not just "Does anyone disagree with this?". (By the way grass fed beef is higher in Omega 3 than salmon, but then again you are against eating salmon also.)

These forums should be about providing information to those who are seeking knowledge so they can eat healthier, be more fit and improve their lives. Please keep that in mind when posting in the future. I am sure you have some good information, for me your presentation makes it a little (pardon the pun) hard to swallow.

Thanks for the vote of confidence rpmcduff. I'm trying my best to keep the discussion civil.

Coey,

The Inuit population studied by Viljalmhur Steffanson during the early part of the 20th century was a population in their prime. Members routinely reached their 70s and 80s. This was before a western diet was introduced and their diet consisted mainly of animal fat and organ meat, and kelp and ground nuts when they could be found. Very low carbs combined with high levels of saturated fat (which get transformed into strongly anti-inflammatory compounds within the body) meant strikingly low occurrences of heart disease and cancers. The overweight issues are an adaptation to the cold. More fat means more insulation, but as long as this is subcutaneous fat instead of visceral fat, it poses no health risk.

Fast forward to the 1980s, where modern native Alaskan Inuits have had their traditional diets replaced in part with coffee, sugar, white bread, margarine, and soft drinks. Now heart disease and cancer have been brought to levels similar to the rest of America, while the traditional killers of native Inuit continue to bring down the average life expectancy: high infant mortality, limited access to modern medicine, and high rates of suicide due to the social isolation that comes with being a native American in this country. Hardly dietary factors.

The plant-based diet I am referring to is the USDA food pyramid. Perhaps that isn't the plant-based diet you envision, but when the first two levels of the pyramid are grains, fruits, and vegetables, it's hard to think of what else to call it. During the period of time the food pyramid has been in use, American waists have expanded and overall health has deteriorated.

Show me the domination of athletes on plant-based diets. The best football players grow up on meat and potatoes. As do elite athletes in many other sports.

The China Study is a flawed attempt to turn a series of correlations into a cause-effect argument. It is based on epidemiological data that can't be used to definitively prove anything. If one were to look at the scientific paper from which the book was derived, many of the correlations themselves are statistically insignificant. At best, the study can be used to establish a broad framework from which to do further randomized and controlled studies, but in and of itself it says.... nothing.

Dr. Campbell's rants against the "dangers" of protein come from studies on rodents, in which he fed them irresponsible amounts of unnaturally isolated casein protein from milk. Aside from the fact that rodent metabolism and physiological responses are completely different from our own, there is no way we could eat a relatively proportionate amount of protein, nor could we eat that amount of isolated casein which supposedly causes tumors in rats. Casein is generally found alongside whey protein in milk, which, in fact, suppresses tumor formation.

I realize that milk is not entirely hormone free. I know that cows produce their own hormones and these are present in the milk. However, it's the artificial hormones that concern me. Recombinant hormones are not natural and can trigger severe immune reactions in those that are sensitive to them. In a similar vein, it's the structure of the gluten protein and starches in the primordial einkorn variety of wheat that causes it to have a nearly 30% less severe blood glucose spike and associated insulin response than unnaturally selected modern varieties of wheat.

Finally, I don't promote any commercial diet. Don't belittle my lifestyle by assuming I'm pushing something, then calling me out when I say something that conflicts with it. I personally eat 80% paleo/primal. I'll eat dairy/eggs and meat, but most of what I eat is green vegetables. I stay away from all grain products, and if I'm all worn out from a day of heavy lifting, I'll carb load with sweet potatoes or carrots. I advocate people finding what works for them, and I don't believe that anyone should have to adhere to complex rules and charts or feel like they're depriving themselves in the context of eating "healthy."

I highly recommend you read "The Vegetarian Myth" by Lierre Kieth; "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes; and "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan. For good measure, read "Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers" by Robert Sapolsky.

Disclaimer: I'm not professionally qualified to make any formal recommendations. I've just done my homework and I'm my own guinea pig. All of my data, unless otherwise cited, comes from a sample size of n=1 (me).